|
|
Posts: 23
| Provided the money went to the resource I would pay more to fish. What I really would like is to take the my money they use to build the god@&?m lightrail and put it towards the fisheries. At least then it would go to something I would use. Subsidized transportation of a bunch of mostly empty train cars, you wanna talk about waste. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 203
Location: Alexandria, Minnesota | Wow.......I know that in Minnesota we have been very lucky to have the DNR that we have. They have helped to build some of the top Muskie Fishing oppurtunites in the country and if any of you did your research into what it cost them to stock each and every fingerling that they do, Then I believe that you would be supportive of license increase. I know that I am. |
|
| |
|
| Guides support license fee increases, shocker.
I also love how pointer keeps assuming it's dedicated funding and could never be diverted to say a bike trail. The same dedicated funding hogwash is how they got the Legacy amendment passed and now we are giving grants to dirty hippies so they can do interpretive dance to whale sounds in some shiney new downtown builing and pretending it's part of our cultural heritage.
More money solves everything! Look at our schools if you don't believe me. They have never been better. LOL |
|
| |
|
|
The fact that so many of you are against an increase because you assume that it won't go to anything useful or is being wasted speaks volumes.
Not having a clue about actual budgets, how money is spent and what it actually costs to keep our fisheries at the standard they are and yet you won't support an increase.
Maybe eduacating yourself to the situation before taking the stance of "all the money is going to waste and I'm not gonna pay no more" would be an effective approach?
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | DJS - 12/12/2011 5:55 AM
Guides support license fee increases, shocker.
I also love how pointer keeps assuming it's dedicated funding and could never be diverted to say a bike trail. The same dedicated funding hogwash is how they got the Legacy amendment passed and now we are giving grants to dirty hippies so they can do interpretive dance to whale sounds in some shiney new downtown builing and pretending it's part of our cultural heritage.
More money solves everything! Look at our schools if you don't believe me. They have never been better. LOL
Have you read up on where you license fees go? Or how there is a Federal match? Or what a state needs to do to be eligible for that Federal dollar match?
I didn't think so. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
|
Just skimmed over this whole thread and noticed nobody mentioned the month long shutdown in MN in June/July. Think that has something to do with these numbers? I'd guess so.
I'm for an increase assuming the money goes to fisheries.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | whynot - 12/12/2011 9:26 AM
Just skimmed over this whole thread and noticed nobody mentioned the month long shutdown in MN in June/July. Think that has something to do with these numbers? I'd guess so.
I'm for an increase assuming the money goes to fisheries.
I'd guess not. Consider the date on the article. Probably why no one mentioned it. |
|
| |
|
| Pointerpride102 - 12/10/2011 10:49 AM
Word - 12/10/2011 9:08 AM
Sorry NOFEAR.
That doesn't work under a redistribution regime. Your tax dollars go where they want them to go. Period.
No license increase from me unitl things "change."
For a stamp or fishing license dollars?
I'll use one of your smart responses now. It says no license increase.
I didn't stutter.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| Pointerpride102 - 12/12/2011 10:29 AM
whynot - 12/12/2011 9:26 AM
Just skimmed over this whole thread and noticed nobody mentioned the month long shutdown in MN in June/July. Think that has something to do with these numbers? I'd guess so.
I'm for an increase assuming the money goes to fisheries.
I'd guess not. Consider the date on the article. Probably why no one mentioned it.
Didn't read the article, just your post which I took as recent numbers. Wonder how the numbers are now? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Word - 12/12/2011 9:29 AM
Pointerpride102 - 12/10/2011 10:49 AM
Word - 12/10/2011 9:08 AM
Sorry NOFEAR.
That doesn't work under a redistribution regime. Your tax dollars go where they want them to go. Period.
No license increase from me unitl things "change."
For a stamp or fishing license dollars?
I'll use one of your smart responses now. It says no license increase.
I didn't stutter. ; )
Ok, thanks for confirming that you have no clue how license revenue works and/or is used. |
|
| |
|
| foo. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Foo?
I'm just stating what you confirmed. |
|
| |
|
| Fishing license revenues fund 75 percent of Fisheries’ $35 million annual budget. These dollars are used to manage 5,400 fishing lakes and 15,000 miles of rivers and streams.
But rising costs for items such
as fuel - which has doubled in
price - have led to tight budgets. To address this, DNR has cut the number of lake and stream and creel surveys, affect- ing the ability to evaluate regulations and stocking. Fisher- ies also has reduced the number of trucks, boats and field equipment, and implemented other cost-saving measures to stretch license dollars.
Game and Fish Fund balance nearing critical stage
Your hunting, angling and trapping license fees go into a dedicated account called the Game and Fish Fund. This fund pays for core fish, wildlife and law enforcement work, plus other essential ecological and business functions.
Despite many cost-cutting and efficiency measures, this fund no longer covers expenditures. It is projected to “go negative” by 2014, because costs have increased in the last 10 years while the basic prices of fishing and hunting licenses have not.
Without adequate funding, core fisheries, wildlife and enforcement work will go undone, and hunting and angling are likely to decline in quality.
What about Legacy Amendment funding?
Legacy Amendment dollars (generated from a constitutionally dedicated .375 percent sales tax) go into a separate dedicated account. Both Legacy dollars and Game and Fish Fund dollars can be spent only for their intended purposes. License dollars fund the staff, science and infrastructure of natural resource management. Legacy Amendment dollars pay for major landscape-level projects that restore, protect and enhance natural resources.
Legacy Amendment dollars do not go directly to the DNR. The Minnesota Legislature distributes them to many different organizations based on project proposals that usually are developed with assistance from DNR staff, who are funded by license revenues.
In short, DNR experts funded by license revenues are vital to maximizing the benefits of projects funded through the Legacy Amendment sales tax. |
|
| |
|
|
Have you read up on where you license fees go? Or how there is a Federal match? Or what a state needs to do to be eligible for that Federal dollar match?
I didn't think so.
-----
Mike Bolinski
I am not a member of Mensa.
"ly" it's the new buzz word. "serious"
Some people are clowns.
So if I trust the government on what it costs to run the fisheries monopoly I should then be for a fee increase? You have got to be kiding me? They have no incentive to bring down the cost of doing any fisheries related activities since there is no competition. No matter what BS cost number they give me the bottom line is the private sector could do it better for half the price and thus the DNR is wasting money.
Edited by DJS 12/12/2011 12:42 PM
|
|
| |
|
|
A majority of the muskie stocking in MN is done by private business, hired by the DNR. Get educated before you start in on problems that you are making up in your head.
A license is not a tax FYI. It's what you pay to use the resources that belongs to everyone in MN. It's a user fee, you pay it if you want to. It's not a tax.
For those of you who have the attitude that your money is currently being wasted and your not getting what you are paying for, please quit fishing in MN.
JS
|
|
| |
|
| And we all know the government does a stellar job of contracting out bids no possible favorites being played or money being wasted there. You have got be kidding me! |
|
| |
|
|
Put your money where your mouth is and come up with some numbers of all this waste.
Otherwise whatever you have to say is pretty much meaningless.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Good job Guest.....now, couple the Game and Fish fund with the Dingle-Johnson (Wallop-Breaux) Act aka Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act.
http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/FASPORT.HTML
Interesting little tidbit in the link.....
"To be eligible to participate in the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration program, states are required to assent to this law and pass laws for the conservation of fish which include a prohibition against the diversion of license fees for any other purpose than the administration of the state fish department."
Hmm.....
I don't know much about the Legacy Amendment, but from what I can tell there is no Federal Aid attached to it which is why Legislators could divert the funding where they see fit.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/news/features/amendment.html
Legacy Amendment appears to have some pretty broad definitions as to what the money can be used for. |
|
| |
|
| I'll come up with waste numbers when you can give me a run down of the competitive bid process the MN DNR used in picking the private company that did their muskie stocking. Until then all you have to say is just as useless. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | "bottom line is the private sector could do it better for half the price and thus the DNR is wasting money."
That's funny! Hey Pointer, you gettin rich working for the DNR? Could someone in the private sector do your job at half your salary? Would that even be minimum wage?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Flambeauski - 12/12/2011 12:09 PM
"bottom line is the private sector could do it better for half the price and thus the DNR is wasting money."
That's funny! Hey Pointer, you gettin rich working for the DNR? Could someone in the private sector do your job at half your salary? Would that even be minimum wage?
Filthy!
I can't speak for MN, but our bid process requires us to select the lowest bid. |
|
| |
|
| Not sure how the MN DNR selects bids but it's a fact the company that rebilt 35W bridge did not submit the lowest bid.
Do MN DNR employees collect a pension and what is the average age of retirement? (rhetorical) No waste there.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ppretben.pdf |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | DJS - 12/12/2011 12:43 PM
Not sure how the MN DNR selects bids but it's a fact the company that rebilt 35W bridge did not submit the lowest bid.
Do MN DNR employees collect a pension and what is the average age of retirement? (rhetorical ) No waste there.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ppretben.pdf
Is the lowest bid always better?
|
|
| |
|
| Pointerpride102 - 12/12/2011 1:13 PM
Flambeauski - 12/12/2011 12:09 PM
"bottom line is the private sector could do it better for half the price and thus the DNR is wasting money."
That's funny! Hey Pointer, you gettin rich working for the DNR? Could someone in the private sector do your job at half your salary? Would that even be minimum wage?
Filthy!
I can't speak for MN, but our bid process requires us to select the lowest bid.
So your bid process requires you to select the lowest bid...but you question if the lowest bid is always better? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8806
| Seems like common sense to me - the lowest bid is lowest for a reason, and it's usually not because that particular company has figured out a way to provide the same level of service as everyone else at a cheaper price. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 186
Location: West Chicago, IL | Not supportive of an increase and I also think this is absolutely the wrong forum to get the right anwsers. Why? Well, for starters, musky fishermen tend to have money. We pay a lot for baits and travel to fish so an extra 25-50 bucks isn't really a big deal.
However, what about the 18 year old kid that likes to fish a few times a year but the extra 25 bucks is too much so he gives it up. What about the person living on a fixed income that can't afford the extra money to enjoy fishing 2 or 3 times a year. Guess what, more people fall into these categories that buy licenses than do "hard core" fishermen.
If the cost increase ends up putting enough people off and deciding that buying a license to fish isn't worth it to go a few times a year, your reveue will actually drop and our fisheries departments will actually have less money.
It's not quite the "no brainer" that most of you seem to think that it is..... |
|
| |
|
| Mr Pointer, I'm not at all surprised that 62% don't want an increase. Now is really not a good time to ask for more money from the outdoorsmen of Wisconsin. The DNR there has a terrible mis-management track record lately with deer, wolves, and spending in general. The Cruiserfest example is another one....what a joke that was, as mentioned. I've witnessed wardens overstepping and acting all high and mighty many times.....but another subject altogether.
Overall, the Wis. DNR has a bad reputation and a bad image, one that they have earned over the years. Repair with the general public is in order....or you can expect that 62% against shown above to be even higher. I think we all hope that the new governor has a plan that may straighten things out some, but for starters you folks should think about dropping the bad attitude. That would be a good place to start. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | But asking a kid to pay $50 for a video game they'll get sick of in 3 days is OK? Or jeans they outgrow or soil in 6 months? Fishing is a relatively cheap hobby, fairly expensive to manage to the level of quality people desire. So if the choice is spending less for a lower quality product or spending more for a higher quality product I'll choose the latter. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Amused - 12/12/2011 1:42 PM
Pointerpride102 - 12/12/2011 1:13 PM
Flambeauski - 12/12/2011 12:09 PM
"bottom line is the private sector could do it better for half the price and thus the DNR is wasting money."
That's funny! Hey Pointer, you gettin rich working for the DNR? Could someone in the private sector do your job at half your salary? Would that even be minimum wage?
Filthy!
I can't speak for MN, but our bid process requires us to select the lowest bid.
So your bid process requires you to select the lowest bid...but you question if the lowest bid is always better?
Sure, seen it happen where lower bids have been selected and work subpar compared to other guys worked with before who came in with a higher bid. Not rocket appliances there. |
|
| |
|
|
I'm not the one making claims on the internet that the DNR is spending to much on stocking because they are wasteful and the bid process is crooked.
Seems to me that my statements stand on thier own, and anybody who knows me knows the I have a pretty good handle on what goes on in the MNDNR.
I've been involved in stocking efforts from the egg collection up to the actual stocking of walleyes and muskies. I have a pretty good idea of what it takes to do it.
I've never had a feeling of wasted effort or money by the DNR in that process.
The MNDNR comes to our MI club annually and is very forthright in talking about expenses and future needs.
If you want to keep flinging baseless statements about how wasteful and useless the MNDNR is than you should put some effort into getting some experience or facts that can back up what you say.
JS |
|
| |
